Dev Shawn McGrath Lays Down Some Smack: storytelling in games is worthless

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I can make games in my spare time. I made some maps for DooM and Quake 2, a gameplay mod to Hexen, Neuroshima Hex(boardgame) etc. You can find my ideas in games like Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup (for instance Inner Flame spell, amulet of Guardian Spirit, rebalance of dracionians). I have lots of ideas of my own, but even when I make something it's not going to be something you would enjoy. A hint of things I find interesting can be found here: http://boardgamearena.com

If for some reason you are assuming and suggesting I wouldn't be interested in board games, I love board games.

That's a false equivalence, board games only have turn based mode, where computer games have real time. and story is not a mechanic, its often just a reward for progression...

Besides the fact that even relatively simple turn-based PC games are often vastly more complex than you could reasonably manage as a board game, whereas game narratives tend to be much simpler than book narratives.

Besides the fact that even relatively simple turn-based PC games are often vastly more complex than you could reasonably manage as a board game, whereas game narratives tend to be much simpler than book narratives.

And the games with complex narratives tend to be soft on the game system aspects. Betrayal at Krondor is the game with the best storie around that manage to have a fun game in between, even though they sacrificed gameplay aspects like character classes, locked exploration based on chapters and the like. It's quite telling that one game with the most praised story its the "push button to next reward" to the moon...

That only 10% players finish games - if this number is true - is a statement of the sorry state of "game" industry. They have degenerated. Many modern "games" are simply crap and not fun to play. The article quoted above, the one with Gay Monopoly, says it much better than I can. Just because some "games" are newer than others doesn't mean they're better.http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/foru...l=1#post225700

People have got way less time on there hands these days and there's much more variety in terms of the activities they can be doing.

Personally with work/commute/lifestyle etc I'm lucky if I get more than a couple of hours of 'me' time on an evening to play a game/catch up on TV shows, or read a book, and the latter are a lot easier to do Vs the former given the physical demands aren't as great (you've got to be in the mood to game after all..playing when your tired/fatigued is the worst thing). Last night for instance I played probably an hour of Digital: A love story, before crashing out with BBCs Supersized earth for an episode and then wound down reading a bit more Cloud Atlas.

Weekends sure offer a lot more opportunity for long session gaming, but that's not gauranteed. I'd say a 8-12 hour game will probably keep me occupied as a 'project' for a good week and a bit. A 30 hour game probably 3-4 weeks. As far a big projects go to play I'm a fair way through HM:A & I have Farcry 3 to get into at some point. Christmas through to Feb provides a nice window of opportunity to catch up on some titles as well as finish off some uncompleted titles (TW2, DS are on the 'to finish' list).

Despite my admiration of TWD will I replay it? There's a strong possibility over Christmas at some point if an opportunity presents itself. However I'm pretty confident that I'm unlikely to ever replay BM:AC, Dishonored, Borderlands 2 (DLC aside), Max Payne 3 or a bunch of other games I finished this year, because once the new titles start appearing like Tom Raider in March there simply won't be the time for that sort of indulgent backtracking.

If you're the kind of person who has the freetime to religiously replay Halflife every year for instance, more power to you. However I'd say you're an outlier Vs the rest of us.

I think i have a theory out of my ass why there is so much negligency today towards gameplay and not story. The thing is, most people prefer to watch games instead of play them(see major mainstream non software games such as soccer, b-ball,etc...), so this somehow broke into games with set-pieces, lots of cutscenes, more easy games,rise of lets play, etc...

So despite being played with moving pieces on a playing board it's not a board game because movement and actions are card-based? I can't even begin to count all the games that would like to have a serious word with you.

Originally Posted by dnf

I think i have a theory out of my ass

Well, that explains a lot.

- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -

That's because a Formula 1 race with 22 spectators and 154 million drivers wouldn't be a Formula 1 race but evening rush hour. ;)

Formula 1 is a elite sport,so yeah. But even in mainstream and easy acessible sports such as soccer or b-ball, the ratio of spectators/players(amateurs or pros) are favorable to spectators... that's not really the case with eletronic games though, until now...

Formula 1 is a elite sport,so yeah. But even in mainstream and easy acessible sports such as soccer or b-ball, the ratio of spectators/players(amateurs or pros) are favorable to spectators... that's not really the case with eletronic games though, until now...

... outside of South Korea.

- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -

Some are technically turn-based, but still in real time.
- Polarity
- Jenga

Originally Posted by baboonanza

Besides the fact that even relatively simple turn-based PC games are often vastly more complex than you could reasonably manage as a board game, whereas game narratives tend to be much simpler than book narratives.

I disagree. Or, it depends what you have in mind. A common example of "a complex computer game" is Heroes of Might and Magic 3. Sure, it is complicated as far as the number of tokens goes and number of units. However, the game doesn't have a high learning curve. That's what made it popular in the first place. There are many no-brainers and false choices:

- would you rather cast Expert Bloodlust, a level 1 spell which will give all your units +6 attack skill against everyone, or pay more mana for a level 4 Slayer, which at expert level will only grant +8 attack for ONE unit and only against level7 units ?
- would you rather use your 20 crystals to upgrade cyclops dwelling, or build the behemoth lair ?
- would you rather learn Logistics or Estates ? Eagle Eye or Offense ?
- what use can you find for the spells: Hypnotize, Inferno, Landmine, Sorrow(you have to be bad at math to value this spell), Misfortune ?

When balance in a game is as terrible as in Heroes 3, you suddenly realize a lot of choices the game presents you with are obvious. They don't make a good strategy game. Contrast this to something like the board game "Seasons" (playable for free at http://boardgamearena.com ). In Seasons, you get meaningful decisions every single turn. There are only 2 stinkers out out 50 cards: Balance of Ishtar and Idol of the Familiar.

The bottom line: it's the number of viable, meaningful decisions possible that matters, not all theoretical decisions. I can dismiss my hero on turn 1. Would I ?

-----------

What annoys me in computer strategy games is they hide so many numbers from you. Some board games are very nice to play on computers, because they do the tedious work for you (such as shuffling cards very often in Dominion, or moving score markers in Seasons). Later computer strategy games not only simplify and shorten things, they also hide from you and I hate it. For example, how does the Sacrifice spell work in Heroes III ?

Originally Posted by in-game description

Destroys a friendly creature group in order to resurrect a dead group. Number of resurrected creatures depends on the caster's spell power and the health of the destroyed stack.

Oh really ? Depends - how ? Descriptions like this have misled countless people into thinking Sacrifice is a bad spell. Sacrifice a unit to revive another one ? What a joke ! However, when some digging reveals the formula is:

You start thinking, and realize the bonus of spell power and Fire Magic skill is the highest when used on numerous low-level creatures.Good luck figuring that out with the in-game description. How about sacrificing Imps to resurrect a week worth of Archdevils (2) ?